The Sun. — London, England, 1818-05-15 00:00:00

a stite t tai e", 11 j ttrY, "fits eol4phta , s he 0 " , JO on ° c ol e Ma rtbd t hat ieu alit° Li te n itor p erb to vi s i o hen P r Tot its ser' bg ition ich ,ut inch Ifia , r 1) 11- ( 1 josto r/ . . ji • cooffiP. olg iii fprd't s t CNrc tbe 14' e OW • it ) Jot' fi rti t 00,`" ea i s et :F iv on• (101411. ItiC 7f rOm irrft di g nt of 1 .I% l° „iof c r• of er 1')'• 01 s °Did 11." t1 ,1; 1 , n , " efo' e of st 3 "' o e e ef 01 ' " oi ;10 1s to t befi" ar tNied eo f ti p ov the ,!„0 1 the 11° 1 no 5C be 01 1 01). wit be lt! t s. -Se t i‘ 9 l) ; rants • twhilac atea prevent the commission of the crime this the frequency of capital punislament for lorer fen ee rendered ou r law odious in the eyes of thaj l ' e ri• That Learned Judge then to e Le declaredgisla . ta re "NI% but the interference o f ""hl, he w a s p ersua d e d, put a stop to thin th e at t- a tid crying evil. The next topic to which ti ve l , loll Member a' alluded wai . the Petition from which the Petitioners earnestly urged tiee,"o"se to t Ik e the s u bject into its consn era -4a'4." W ittall these calls upon it, he was per -14444 the i thmsewoold not any longer . delay e.n of the inciease Y. Another melancholy proof 'lran crinle was to be found in a summary lately p"P by th e Home Office, by which it ap 141r, that from the . ye..ar 1805 to 1811, the fr o , of capital convictions were 3%; whilst in t 1811 to LBlB, they :involuted to 5, .th r l i !'e of crime did not, he believed, arise front 1) 4 4 , 'usu a l or increased immorality of the people, 44; t ra e , ti t her arose out of the economical system. t the cont i nua l variance in the price of 11,1' o 17 necessaries of lite, and the frequent . rt i se m at o id ttri e ;: f w ages ; but above all, out of the syse of t t i"ertible paper money. He would nut dwell 1 1 / 4 , s i' loss of individuals by these . tes ; but he 04 '4 n 'etuion one instance to spew how nittcli a 18 „ 14 •Persons, least able to hear loss, (l id l ose 4 1 4 ,, f- i r gett notes , many hundreds of which never Itts{ red th e Bank'. A tradesman having received t '"te, hich turned nut a forgery, he recol t"dap„. w ha y . 1 believed, taken it of the "g, as IC neighbourhood. Il t "ter of a tradesmln in the net, tli iii `T.P!ied to this tradesman to have die bad note bie t ; ig. " for a good one ; the lat ter tra . d . esmai s i s t e le : s;o 1 , I '"''ing h a d th e b a d note in his po 14.4; t)t that his daughter had paid it the cotu 'r The complainant brought his action 141 Marsh a l sea Court ; the Jury gave aitn i : d ict for 51. a nd th e poor man was obliged 4i, v4 Y that sum, and also 231. for costs.E etilt)iateri;,vtittitielriei;()%tvilg was discovered that the man w woman with giving hire this bad li raii tas mistaken. The mistake arose from the 14 4 41e semblance she bare to Emma Connor, who i 1 , 4,, L ) " 4 1 puttini, off . bad notes in that neighbou 1) (it all putting satisfaction the poor mao got } ri v i ng 231• costs, for resisting payment of 51. liehiy nev er oug ht t o h a ve p p aid. This, ro ‘el' z w as only one case out of many hundreds. ;;tir el "lC of England was bound, in justice to 'tit i . 4 el '" characters, to investigate this s ubject 1: 11 ' and also to call for the invest igatio n lie trusted he should not again tars of the a ff. i i r s o f t h e Bank tvete the af tof Privat e • l• 'I" and not to be hives tvate Ivo urt i lt aa - a l. It might as well be said that the Mint -,; I , lE ivate P. establishment. In the situation as the Batik and the Public stood, it cN e t ' l e duly o f th e Bank to exert every t" protect the In America the ,Per circulation anv)iiiited to 30,000,000. For. Vt'a S 40( a Capital (,Ifence ) yet forgery was very as and why ? the Bank o f Amer i ca 1141'44 proteettd by the gibbet, and therefore ete taut op themselves, by reti e., `- • t • •getv oi tuctot ; wnost t his great coon "at ‘Ol-4ard in Arts , he was told that any boy, 14r4'4 , ( 1 1 been months with an engraveronight - ..te Notes of d ie Bi o k Etiglawl, not in art as to deceive. the Bank, but so as to deceive • 1 44 Y 0 „ lili e• to cast no reflections on "tit )r e v ' he'liad endeavoured to avoid doing so. ; mild not sit down ‘vithout again express c44chlisurPrise at this motion being opposed. Ile ~..ut tl i , .e t l by m ov i ng for the appointment of a 'Ni t " I e to enquire into the best mode of pre ihtit 14 Eo rgeries, and to report 'to the House e thereon. (1111, CuaN cELcon of the EXCHEttLfER did not etil l t e t motiou b e ca u se he considered the fi s h the Hon. Gentleman sought to cure 4 h 'it bec ause lie considered the mode pro- Y the H on . G ent l eman as not tieing 'the tltit whit,t might be adopted. The subject W 33 to IN F 'he!i ..might require long and laborious in- to vesti ,, atioll and would not be fitted 44 ' ' l s'i gition ' by a dommittee; he would to the Horse the propriety of ap t.t44 leisg C ommission, instead of a Committee; t his,,, r ftb iect wo u ld h e to M ove an amendment ast s s " e ct• He had seen many specimens of wake , net fi rst sight, he considered would st,eiti,._.(rY Purpose ; hut all of theta, on close eele k l " , l4l , appeared inadequate. Ile was per -111 lilac considerable • might be I 't • improvement th tt ie , notes . of the Bank of England ; but 1 1, :i tor_ s)augaine enough to anticipat d e alriate ki t e lt l' et r ila th e .n in a sh h ort i ► is speech la( p gieen . rather ttilitiedrrated picture of the present state of the 11 11 . 1)c ar i for gerY• From his statement it would leas d as tea rcel I) re%10139 to this century, forgery At e v that Y been known ; whereas, the fact 5 0 alttl i " the last century forgery was more t a 4 111 h all at present. In the years 1749, lest r, Ali th r,l* the number of forgeries in London . fleediddles the were nineteen ; whereas in the t ) tt e Yea r 18. The Right sh • s they were only f e ,!, thriattlentan entered into a detail, tending to ti N fety we at latter periods the convictions ) for tt t f tirthi not so frequent as at former peri o ds Ivi. ,t e of r, that fo r the last seven years the in -14'4 th e i n t his crime had lint borne a proportion As 4 c riN e e . r ease of other crimes, and especially tee, 4 4o le ° l , "ining,. • He concluded by moving, cio pr .'"Ment, an Address to the Prince Re lit:illy p rig his Royal Highness would be g-ra -4esiteased to appoint a commission to make LotinAn NT was in favour of the original 411),Iters.11e was per sua d e d t h e country wou l d h e f,tatlier4.tished with a Parliamentary inquirythan eta ut he knew of no subject to which Itou r tuee could b etter devote its time and ht an to this important one. til:t.trahleNta,T, after th e a bl e speec h of his t 4 t . itit o ri " t end, did n ot cons id er i t necessa r y to rn ' tiv e l a ' t "ail on this subject. He must, how -111;:t ettie, siliittkiil,jore that he preferred a Committee to re I t i Nt 111 " It , must also remark on the Right Honourable Gentleman mf-i t , ;tit 40 of forgery was on the decline : 4+lll„:itt h Offvnce to the Right Hon. Gentle ktoettittil Ire rte ertt most say that such was not the fact, i'll(4d mad e it appear so by a garbled , p :tlg ; s'in.stead o fdeclioing, the crime was in ''eut ce d "ring the three first months of ;ear Ito less a number than 112 had been indicted for this crime. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad also drawn comparisons between the present and times gone by ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman forgot that now persons were allowed to plead guilty to the smaller offence of having notes in their possession, and thus escape capital punishment ; formerly all persons guilty of this offence suffered. The Solicitor to the Bank had not then the power of selecting who shOold be executed and who should be saved—a power which no individual ought to be possessed of. The present Solicitor was, he believed, a most respectable man, but who could say what a future Solicitor to the Bank might he, and that the privilege of pleading to the less offence would not hereafter be made a source of profit Indeed this /Vas a practice which he wished to have enquired into ; this practice took away the equality of the law, as i , ad been seen lately in the case of - an unhappy female, who, notwithstanding all the interest which had been made for her, both with the Crown and the Bank, had been executed. He wished to know why this unfortunate female was thus selected for severity and punishment—he could not say justice ? He wished to know why Thompson, %vim was an old offender, a wcll-knowit issuer and manufacturer of lot ged notes, was allowed to plead to a lesser of fence, whilst a poor boy, of eighteen, was tried and convicted for the capital offence, was now lying in the condemned cell ; and unless he met with more mercy, or rather more justice, than the unhappy female did, would, no dobbt, pay the forfeit of his life ? He concluded .by giving its., warmest support to the original motion. Mi. S. THORNTON .was in favour of the Amend ment. He defended the Governors of the Bank. Tl:e Hon. Gentleman did not pretend to enter into a detail of the case of the unhappy woman who had been alluded to, hot, as far, as his own opi nion went, he considered her's as a case in which the law ought to have been allowed to take its course. Mr. HusxtssoN considered the speech of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet) as one strongly in favour of the Amendment ; since that Honourable Gentleman had stated what were the subjects which he widied to delegate to the Comtnittee, namely, to enquire into the Criminal Law on this subject ; to arraign the character and conduct of the Judges in the exe cution of that law; to censure the Crown, the fountain of mercy, for the Wanner in which it had exercised that branch of its prerogative ; and to rejudge cases now placed beyond all human indgment. The Hon. Gentleman's speech bad been a siring of charges against the Crown and individuals, whilst the Hon. Gentleman, who had brought forward the motion had carefully and studiously abstained front such a course. He was au opponent to the motion, because he consi dered the object of the Hon_ Gentleman could not be obtained by the appointment of a Committee, whilst the labours of a Commission might effect it. • Sir S. Romm.v was in favour of the original motion. '!'l►e Hon. Member also complained of the misrepresentation which had been made by the last Spiker of the speech of his Honour ibis Friend (Mr. Bennet). His Hon. Friend I►acl not brought a charge against the Jud-4es, or against the Crown—all his Hon. Friend haul done was, to allude to, and condemn a system which ren dered a selection of cases necessary ; which selec tion could not fail to be productive of great dis content. - General GASCOYNE was im favour of the origi nal nootinn. M r . M ANN ' \G opposed the motion, and defend ed the amendment. He wished now to state, that be should be happy to give his aid in any emptily which miglit be instituted by the House. The Go vernors ot the Bank were not anxious tor them selves, but they were most anxious for the Public; and their only wish was to discover something to .protect the Public from imposition ; and to do so - they would spare no expellee. Formerly it was the custom with the Bank to permit the indivi duals teudering forged notes to take the note away to trace it, atter it had been stamped with the voids " Forged Note." - But it had been found, on several occasions, that these words were, by a chemical process, removed, and the notes again put in circulation. Sir A. PIOOOTT defended the conduct of the Governors ot the Bank, who had always been most anxious to discover some mode for prevent ing forgeries and defending the Public. Mr. W. SMITH thought the Batik had not adopted all the precautions which they ought to have done when their notes became the circulating medium of the country. They ought to have placed some ntaik on the face of their notes by which the receiver of Banknotes might distin• guish the forged note from the true as well as the Bank could. Mr. CANNING thought it was impossible to look for any practical conclusion from a Committee of the House at this late period of the Session; whereas, from a Commission, appointed by the Crown, continuing ,its 'sittings, he could expect some good result, though not to the extent ex pected. He was yet to learn how it would be a security to the Public to make known any ciite riot) by which the Bank can detect forgeries.; be cause it was supposing that in this country three not was skill enough and industry enough to imi tate what may have been executed. He did not think this particular crime of forgery bad increased in a degree so disproportionate to other crimes as to warrant the opinion that the increase was ow ing to the continuance of the Bank ReStriction. He read the returns of committals for different crimes, to show that they had all materially in creased in the last few years ; and most of them in a Much greater proportion than forgery on the Bank. As to the selection for .punishment by the Bank, he slid it was done with the samocan dour as any individual would make his selection nut of a number of persons %ell,' had committed offences against hint. With regard to the selec tion by the Crown, it was not one for punish ment, but rather a blessed selection from punish ment. Sir J. 711ACINTOS replied.—He now saw, with great satist‘iction, that the Bank Directors, and both sides of the House, agreed that investigation was necessary ; and the only question was, what sort of investigation was most proper to be adopt ed. He had been accused of having drawn an ekaggerated picture of the increase of Bank for geries ; but he woull re t ►eat, that in the 21 years before the Bank Restrktion, six l►rnsecw ions took place for forgeries ; and for the '2l years follow ing that restriction they amounted to 860. It had been said that it was necessary, for the sake of secrecy, that thiS investigation should be made by a Royal Commission. But would the House say that 21 of its own Members were unworthy to be entrusted with any secret that any other Committee might be entrusted with. What would be expected by the Ptiblic from a Commission Of the Crown, but subserviency and inert ton, instead of active anti zealous exertion and enquiry. The House tl►en divided— For the Amendment Fur the Motion 62 Majority - 4 4 When strangers were re-adrnitt to the gc.• Ilery, the CHANCELLOR of the Exc.mEctutEa Was tound oti his legs, moving an Addres — s Nit. a Royal Com mission. Some difficulty apparently had arisen upon certain words, extending the inquiry to the notes of Country Bankers, -and other engraved negociahle securities. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he wi,bed the investigation to be general, and not directed merely against the notes of the Bank of Ent:land. Mr. Jon N SMI 141 was in favour of the Commis sion, hut he Saw no pretence for empowering the Commissioners to enter into the houses of Bankers in the country, upon whom no forgeries had been committed. Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that no such power would be communicated ; the only point to which the labours of the Commissioners would refer was tl►e mode in which notes ought to be con : . structed for the purpose of avoiding forgery. Mr. TIERNEY observed, that it was not difficult to guess the reason why the words, ‘g and other engraved negociable securities," were introtinced. The Chancellor of the Exche►luer was always ex tremely anxious not to give the slightest offence to the Bank of England. As the motion now stood, the Directors might- a little complain that their oid friend had deserted them, or, to use a vulgar phrase, had thrown them over the bridge, by appointing even a Commission to inquire into their private concerns. The Commission, in his opinion, would do more harm than good. The Right Hon. Gentleman might as well give it up at once, and have recourse to his old expedient, and say it was a mistake. Mr. LYTTELTON said there were extreme eases in which it was somtimes advisable to move an adjournment of the House, and in order that fur ther consideration might be given to so important a subject, he should make a motion to that effect. 'f he e Hon. Gentleman then moved that the House should adjourn. The SPEAKER was about to put the question, wl►en Mr. LYTTELTON expressed his intention of . withdrawing his motion, till the House expressed its opinion on the amendment. The motion of adjournment was accordingly withdrawn. After a few winds from Mr. Protheroe, Gipps, t!,e Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. W. Smith, the House divided, when there were, F,,r the Amendment 75 For the Chancellor of the Exchequer's motion S7 Majority for the motion —l2 Mr. LYTTELTON :Appearing determined to press the 'notion of adjournment, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQUER expressed his willingness to withdraw his motion. The SPEAKER said, that the House had already agreed to the motion, and, therefore, the only way of getting rid of the difficulty would be, to nega tive the entire question, and to propose a new one. After a few• words from Mr. W. WYNNE, the Address was negatived, and a new one proposed, the object of which was the same as the former, except that it did not extend to the Country Banks, but was limited to the Bank of England alone. Mr. TIERNEY said he had no objection to the new Address, if the majority had no objection.— What surprised him, however, was, that the Bank Directors were placed in a most aukward predica ment. According . to the doctrine of the Noble i.,ord, they Were to he considered as suspicious persons, against whom precautions were to be taken. Atter some observations from Lord CASTLE REAGH and i\'lr. W. SMITH, the Address was agreed to. _ _ EAST INDIA SHIPPING. Mr. CANNING obtained leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relative to East India Shipping. Mr. Joriti PETER GRANT having risen to make the motion of Which he had given no►ice, Lord CASTLEREAGH wished the lion. and Learned Gentleman to allow the consideration of the Message relative to the marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent to come on first...—. Thi. was refused, COUNT LAS CASAS. Sir J. P. GRANT moved for certain papers re specting Las Casas, the companion of linonaparte in his captivity attSt. Helena; who was sent, as he understood, by the Governor, from St. Helena to the Cape of Good Hope, and sent op the coun try, where he was detained among savages several months against his will. It had been asserted, that he was in some way concerned in sending papers and letters clandestinely from St. Helena. From the Cape he was brought in a ship scarcely sea-worthy to the mouth of the Thames ; Offi cers were then sent on board under the Alien Act, and his papers were taken from him : he was con veyed on board another vessel at Ostend', and from thence delivered over to the Prussians, and ultimately placed under the giartillance of the Po lice at Frankfort. It was against the abuse of the power given by the Alien Act that lie now complained, because he had moved a clause in the Act which prevented the delivery over of Aliens into the hands of their enemies. The clause was rejected at the time, and he was then told such a • case could never happen. It had, however, hap pened in the person of Count Las Casas, if the information was correct. The necessity of amending the Act was therefore apparent. He concluded with moving an Address for the Corre spondence, Orders, &c. in respect to the removal of this person. Lord CASTLEREAGti observed, that the Hon. Gentleman cast an odium upon the Government at the Cape, which was undeAerved, for instead of Las Casas being sent among savages, wrs, it► tact, lodged among the servants iu the Gover nor's country-Loose. With respect to sending Lim to Ostend, he wade no objection, and he was only sent to the borders of the Rhine as being safer than on the confines of France, for it was clear that his object was to carry 0:1 an improper correspondence. His papers were all delivered to him at Frankfort sealed himself admitting they were all perfectly correct. . _ Mr. GouLuortN confit rued the statement of the Noble Lotd, and informed the House, that Ma dan►e Las Caias was consulted as to the place where she would like to meet her husband. She preferred London; bot - that not being deemed a proper meeting-place, she expressed a wish to nicer ,hint at the nearest out-port.—Ostend was therefore selected. After some further observations from Mr..TIER• Mr. DOUGLAS, and Mr. GRANT, the MO.. lion was "negativtql. ROYAL MESSAGE. Lord CASTLEREAGH postponed the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Royal Message 1 . 0 this day, on an understanding that it would take the precedence of all the other Orders. The-other Orders of the Day were then dkpos ed of, and the House adjonrA:l at Half-past One o'Clock. . LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING's BENCH, WESTMINSTER, MAY 14. COMMON JURIES. PALMER versus SOLOMONS. This was an action brought by the son of the late Mr. Palmer, the Comedian, against the de fendant, for an assault and false imprisonment.— The plaintiff was a Midshipman in the Navy, and bad employed tl►edefendant as an agent to negotiate the payment of some prize-money, which led to the injury now complained of.—Before the plain.. tiff's witnesses were called, it was agreed, at the suggestion of the Learned Judge, to refer all the miltters in difference between the parties to arbi trat ion. ACKERIVIAN'N V. ROWNEY AND ANOTHER. This was an' ac►icon by the Printseller of the Strand against the defendants, for printing an en graved likeness of her Royal Highness the late Princess Charlotte of Wales, published by the Mr. TOPPING and Mr. CußwooD conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. MARRYAT and Mr. Comm? the defendants. Witnesses were examined on both sides, the sole question being, whether the defendants' print was a piratical Copy of the plaintiff's ? The scientific witnesses called by the latter swore po— sitively that it was a piracy, and those on the part of the former were equally certain that it was an original. lEdeed, Mr, Henderson, the artist, swore that he had himself taken the likeness from the life in Covent-garden Theatre, from which the defendants' print was engraved. The whole case went to the Jury, with suitable observations from the Learned Judge, and a verdict was found for the defendants. OLD BAILEY. Yesterday, the whole 4 the trials having been gone throtigh, sentence of Death was passed upon the following 16 prisoners :—Thomas Mitchell, James Pearson, John Freak, Smith, Thos. Norris, Christopher Fernand', Thomas Spencer, James Clarke, Eliza Bason, William Holland, George Smith, Thomas Buttery, Timothy M'Na mara, William Bailey, Robert Spencer, anti Charles Gogerly. The five latter prisoners, it will be remembered, have had their cases consider ed upon certain points of law by • the twelve Judges, and the question has been decided against them. Robert Spencer, who was convicted, together with William Bailey, for a but glary, upon being asked the usual question, whether he had any thing to say in stay of judgment, handed in a paper, which he desired might be read in open Court. The RECORDER.-The Court cannot hear the paper read. if you have any thing to say, I will hear it. • The Prisoner.—There is a greet mistake in the evidence laid before the twelve Judges. 1 here was no outside shutter to the window, nor wai t any shutter cot through. The ttacoa DER.—The twelve Judges hive taken. your case into consideration, and they have de cided against you. ThePrisoner.—What never was never can be. The evidence laid before the Judges was in correct. The RECORDER.—Yon cannot tell what was laid before the Jildgcs. Your case has been well considered. • The usual address to the prisoners was then given by the Recorder, and it concluded with ex pressing the hope that God might have mercy on their souls. The prisoner Spencer, addressing the Re corder, obsersed, " I hope he vrill, tor 1 am sure you will not." The whole number of prisoners upon whom sentence was passed was 125. On Tuesday, about one o'clock, when her MA JESTY was about entering her cat riage which was waiting in the front of her Palace, a woman, re spectably dressed, eluded the attention of the sett• tinels, and took advantage, while the Gentletm.n Por:-rs were engaged with some Gentlemen who were leaving their names in the Lodge to inquire after the health of the QUEEN, to slip into the pas sage or colonnade, and was making her way into the Palace, but was fortunately observed, and taken into custody. On being examined before Sir INI.CO. NANT, she said her name was Mary Dunham. She proves to be the same woman who stole the Lord Chancellor's mace, a few days since, from the Court of Chancery, which she -thought was the Crown of England. She was committed to Tot hill-fields Bridewell. She has sent at least twenty letters to Lord Smmotru. She has been at Carlton-House, York-House, most of the Courts of Justice, and in all the places where she gained admittance she stole keys or trifling articles ; she has stole,in the whole 14U keys. it